OpenE2K
/
binutils-gdb
12
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Releases Wiki Activity

Update comments to start_step_over 

I happen to see that comments to start_step_over isn't in sync with
code, so this patch is to update the comments.

gdb/gdbserver:

2016-03-03  Yao Qi  <yao.qi@linaro.org>

	* linux-low.c: Update comments to start_step_over.
This commit is contained in:
Yao Qi 2016-03-03 09:28:19 +00:00
parent 4719d415b9
commit c40c8d4b67
2 changed files with 8 additions and 12 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

4
gdb/gdbserver/ChangeLog
View File

@ -1,3 +1,7 @@
2016-03-03 Yao Qi <yao.qi@linaro.org>
* linux-low.c: Update comments to start_step_over.
2016-03-03 Yao Qi <yao.qi@linaro.org>
PR server/19736

16
gdb/gdbserver/linux-low.c
View File

@ -4625,18 +4625,10 @@ need_step_over_p (struct inferior_list_entry *entry, void *dummy)
of the way. If we let other threads run while we do that, they may
pass by the breakpoint location and miss hitting it. To avoid
that, a step-over momentarily stops all threads while LWP is
single-stepped while the breakpoint is temporarily uninserted from
the inferior. When the single-step finishes, we reinsert the
breakpoint, and let all threads that are supposed to be running,
run again.
On targets that don't support hardware single-step, we don't
currently support full software single-stepping. Instead, we only
support stepping over the thread event breakpoint, by asking the
low target where to place a reinsert breakpoint. Since this
routine assumes the breakpoint being stepped over is a thread event
breakpoint, it usually assumes the return address of the current
function is a good enough place to set the reinsert breakpoint. */
single-stepped by either hardware or software while the breakpoint
is temporarily uninserted from the inferior. When the single-step
finishes, we reinsert the breakpoint, and let all threads that are
supposed to be running, run again. */
static int
start_step_over (struct lwp_info *lwp)